A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.
Speculation, vague rumours, dreams, fantasies and conspiracy theories. The truth is that no-one knows the truth - whatever that is. As (I think)...
Australia is rapidly becoming the most censored "democracy" in the world. ... The World Economic Forum has praised Australia for their extreme...
Why is it missing from this article that the guy was shot in the back? Hard to claim self defense in such case even inside your own home.
May I point out, it’s not only Australians being hoodwinked, RT banned in these nations. al Jazeera was bombed continuously reporters murdered, by...
' You don't need to change your daily behaviour or activities. Government authorities will tell you if this changes ,' ' Local authorities will...
To submit an article for publication, see our Submission Guidelines
Reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views of the volunteers, editors, and directors of SOTT.net or the Quantum Future Group.
Some icons on this site were created by: Afterglow, Aha-Soft, AntialiasFactory, artdesigner.lv, Artura, DailyOverview, Everaldo, GraphicsFuel, IconFactory, Iconka, IconShock, Icons-Land, i-love-icons, KDE-look.org, Klukeart, mugenb16, Map Icons Collection, PetshopBoxStudio, VisualPharm, wbeiruti, WebIconset
Powered by PikaJS 🐁 and In·Site
Original content © 2002-2024 by Sott.net/Signs of the Times. See: FAIR USE NOTICE
Hello, Dr Barry and fellow readers, it's Rory Robertson here, an economist and former fattie.
You may be aware that the University of Sydney's world experts on the (low) Glycemic Index approach to nutrition are mired in a growing scandal in Australia about academic and scientific integrity, after having published a defective paper with an obviously false conclusion in a pay-as-you-publish science E-journal, while the influential lead author was operating as the "Guest Editor" of the publishing journal.
The high-profile "Australian Paradox" paper - embraced post-publication by the sugar and sugary food industries - sought to exonerate added sugar - and in particular super-low-GI = 19 fructose, the "sweet poison" half of added sugar - as a key driver of obesity.
Specifically, the faulty paper "found" that there has been “a consistent and substantial decline” in Australian per-capita consumption of added sugar “over the past 30 years” – 1980 to 2010 – as obesity ballooned, so (falsely) concluding that there is “an inverse relationship” between sugar consumption and obesity.
Awkwardly, these "findings" are based on an Australian Bureau of Statistics sugar series that was discontinued as unreliable after 1998-99, over a decade before the University of Sydney's "shonky sugar study" was (self?) published! How's that as a new low for "peer reviewed" science?
Also extraordinarily - bizarrely - the available (valid) evidence in the relevant timeframe - in the authors' own published charts! - suggests that the trend in per-capita sugar consumption has been up not down, and certainly not down "consistently and substantially".
Yes, the Australian Paradox paper is "one of a kind". And the growing controversy it sparked has become a fascinating case study - of what we can not yet be sure.
My correct critique of the Australian Paradox paper can be found at [Link]
Importantly, note that my dispute with the University of Sydney at its core is not about science or nutrition, it’s about simple things like up versus down, valid versus invalid and the need to correct serious errors in the public debate. These areas are core strengths for a professional economist who has spent a quarter-century immersed in data, charts and the public debate ([Link]).
Australia's media also has been strong in exposing the limited competence in data analysis at the highest level of Australian nutrition "science":
[Link]and [Link]
The University of Sydney's high-profile low-GI authors inadvertently have made their situation worse by defending the deeply flawed paper with further obvious misinformation: [Link]
In that process, the local sugar industry's attempted rescue of its underperforming business partners "crashed and burned": [Link]
Did I mention that the unreliable University of Sydney scientists operate a business that stamps low-GI sugar and low-GI sugary foods as Healthy": pp10-11 at [Link]
Yes, I am arguing near and far for the correction or retraction of the University of Sydney low-GI crew's "shonky sugar study", because in my opinion it is both an academic disgrace and a menace to public health: www.australianparadox.com